I did not watch any of the trial until the verdict but did keep up with it online and tv news. I thought they would at least find her guilty of the child abuse charge. And I was very surprised with quickness of the verdict, especially since the majority of the time a quick verdict means for the prosecution.

This afternoon I watched a bit of the procedings about releasing the names of the jurors and then found this article fro the St Pete Times:

No she has been convicted of forgery and can not leave the state for a couple of years or more.

Okay, I was not aware of the prior conviction. But even so, with time served adjusted for the time that went against the forgery charge and credit for "good time" and "gang time" (the judge used the term, but I have no idea what "gang time" means under Florida law), she'll walk free next week.

The notoriety of this case also makes it likely that threats against the defendant will surface in the next few days because some psychopath will decide to eact retribution for the victim. The courts will lift any such restrictions if they perceive that such restricitons inhibit the defendant's safety.

I am concerned for the jurors. They discharged their duty as best they saw fit, yet now those who disagree want to know their names. So it is that people did their civic duty, which they were compelled to do by law, yet they'll be threatened, sullied, and have their lives ruined by some who seek retribution by blaming the jury. And lets not forget the media encampments on their lawns.

Whenever a jury decision happens you will never please everyone for sure, but the only reason for the "mob mentality" that is occuring is because of the media and attention it brought to the case. Period.
I went as far as placing a memorial picture of Caylee Anthony, out of respect, in our restaurant on digital TV with the message " Although justice was not served, you will never be forgotten"

Okay sportsfans, for me at least, this synopsisizes what a lot of us believe and pretty much underlines why many of us believe what we do as regards the case.

I don't agree with the severity of the jury system as does the following (an e-mail that was forwarded to me) but it does show that there are always flaws in any system and I firmly believe we just obseerved one. At any rate, it's food for thought.

Todd1. The Verdict Is In About Those JurorsI hadn't paid much attention to the Casey Anthony trial; it didn't seem like much of a political story, the subject matter is almost unimaginably grim -- I find fatherhood makes reading about dead children almost unbearable in almost any context -- and it seemed emblematic of the worst impulses of the celebrity-legal-journalism complex.

But maybe there is a bigger story here, a controversy that ran hot in the mid-1990s after the O. J. Simpson trial and faded in a decade marked more by terrorist mass murder than celebrity murderers: the notion that Americans are losing their last wisps of faith in the jury system.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit watches a stunning interview with one of the jurors and finds, at least at face value, that she did not understand some key facts about what was going on -- that they could have found the defendant guilty of charges beyond murder one and that the penalty would be considered in a separate phase of the trial. We know our legal system is imperfect, but can we live in a country where murderers walk free because jurors fundamentally misunderstand their duties and the options before them? Allahpundit:

To begin with, as far as I've always understood, a jury's not supposed to consider the penalty when deliberating about guilt. The defendant's guilty or not based on the evidence; you worry about punishment after you answer that question. If she's saying that her findings of fact would have been different had a nonevidentiary variable been changed, then she's actually practicing a subtle form of nullification here. I don't know, maybe Florida law is different. Either way, there's no way to stop a jury from considering whatever it wants to consider, proper or not.

Could be all she's saying is that the prospect of death drove home to the jury that this wasn't a game, that they had to scrutinize the prosecution's murder narrative with their most skeptical, exacting eye. Okay -- but then why'd they acquit her on manslaughter and aggravated child abuse too? Did the jury perhaps mistakenly believe that those crimes also carried the death penalty? A quote from the clip: "If they'd charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted or, you know, got a guilty sentence, but not for death. Not for first degree." But . . . they did charge her with other things. The whole reason the prosecution made the lesser included offenses available was to give jurors an alternative in case they found the evidence of malice aforethought shaky or, I guess, in case they got squeamish about capital punishment. Even Alan "The System Worked" Dershowitz admits that "There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred homicide." If this juror's saying that they were inclined to send her to prison had death not been on the table, well, they could have taken death off the table themselves and sent her to prison anyway.

At times like this, I'm driven to some classic mid-1990s Dennis Miller:

The frightening reality is every day this society seems to make its legal decisions in much the same way the Archies picked their vacation spots -- blindfold Jughead, give him a dart, and spin the globe. And what do most of these mindless decisions have in common? Well, twelve things -- the jury . . . The entire American legal system is based on the premise of trial by jury and the only way you can get on a jury is if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know [squat] about the case you are about to try.

On the Casey Anthony case, Miller's style and thinking haven't changed much in the past 15 years or so:

I think the system held up in one regard. You're guaranteed a jury of our peers and she's a moron, and they found 12 other morons to form a moron baker's dozen down there. I think it should be like the NFL, where you get that red flag, and during the case if you hear something that you don't like you can stop it right there and go, "I'm voting guilty right now." And I would have stopped it when they said her 2-year-old was lost and she waited 30 days to call the cops. I would have just thrown my flag and said, "Guilty. I don't even need to know what the rest of it is, give her some time." Because anybody who waits 30 minutes, much less 30 days, she's guilty of something. I don't quite know what it is, but something bad; something rotten in Denmark.

One of the jurors was on Greta VanSustren last night. This is not the same lady who was on ABC news. The one last night on Fox immediately impressed me as being intelligent and quite engaged in the trial, and clearly knew the requirements of the jury as far as their instructions and what they could and couldn't consider. Certainly not a moron.

I think a lot of the people holding up pitch forks and torches fail to consider that if a guilty verdict had been entered, it is just as likely an appeals court would reverse it.

I am opposed to TV cameras in courtrooms. It allows this type of circus to develop. While this was a tragic event, it in no way deserved to be made into a national story. Similar trials and horrible crimes happen every day all across the nation.

I will admit that I did not watch any of the procedings in this case but I have to say this.

I don't think all of the jurors knew that just because the prosecution had stated it was a death penalty case that if they had found her guilty of the murder charge they could have ended up not recommending the death penality. I was once called for jury duty for a death penalty case and it was pointed out to all of us prosective jurors that there would be a sperate time to figure if the penalty would be death or life in prison. That happens from a few days to a week after the verdict, depending on the judge, defense and prosecution team. I did not get picked for that case but did keep up with it as I was one of the last to be let go. And for all of us that either were chosen or those of us who were the last to be let go knowing that if the verdict was guilty of 1st degree murder it was important to know that we did not have to vote for death if it was something that we really could not do.

I would like to hear from all of the jurors but don't really care if I ever find out their names, that is not important but hearing why and how they decided the not guilty verdicts is and not just for me but I think also for prosecution teams. It can make only for better prepared cases, especially when the case is really all curcumstansial (sp) and no real hard evidence.

I think the case would have been overturned actually either on incompetence by the lead Defense Attorney should the defendant have been convicted of anything important (but who now has suddenly become a hero in some quarters and has already now been contacted by the William Morris Agency for both he along with the Anthony woman) or else quite possibly for violation of the Miranda rights. What I saw wasn't an interview, it was an interrogation. I noticed the Defense team really has class. When they were celebrating in a restaurant right at the window and the public was outside demonstrating, the older guy (I forgot his hame) just gave them the finger. Really "professional" legal team, huh?

But I still love the juror who following the trial said he'd do an interview for six figures! Everybody's got dollar signs in their eyes!

But the best one was the big Porn company that wanted her to come do adult films and then quickly withdrew the offer because they didn't want to offend their customers!!!

There was conclusive forensic evidence that the child had duct tape in the area of her mouth. Secondly, the mother didn't even report her missing for I think over a month and kept lying about where she was. Why?

Now if the death was an accident, I would like to know the answers to those questions. If the baby had accidentally drowned, why all of the hullabaloo? Her very own tesitmony was enough to convict her in any court I've ever been in. She repeatedly lied not only to police but the prosecution and even her own lawyer threw his original defense right out the window which is practically unheard of.

I personally think the entire answer to the whole thing was the look on the parents faces as they got up and left right after the verdict was read and if anyone knows, they certainly do. The mother lied to save her child's life but I think it's obvious, they both knew she was responsible for their granddaughter's death.

But Dave said it best. Get the cameras out of the courtooms (but I don't think that's ever going to happen).

I think some very basic situations has enflamed the public to get to this point, no one will ever know the answers and that adds fuel to the fire.

"IF" as Jose told the world, Caley died in a tragic accidental drowning, why not call 911? We just had 2 exact same drownings here this week. The authorities come, investigate,and the poor child is laid to rest, the family mourns and tries to carry on.

The very fact that this child was not listed as missing till 31 days after the fact, was the first giveaway that foul play was involved. The fact that 2 grandparents coddled Casey, while Calley was missing, and did not immediately call law enforcement is something I cannot understand. Shame on both of them.

I can understand people being disppointed about the trial outcome, but, I dont get the mob mentality of the people who feel they know better than the people who sat through the trial as jurors.

I'm with you on this.

Last night, when I stopped into an Applebee's for a late supper, one of the waitresses was very upset that the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty" on the three more serious charges. After listening to what she had to say, I had to explain to her that, in our criminal justice system, the question before the jury is NOT "Did the defendant commit the crime?" but rather "<i>Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt </i> (or, in the case of a capital offense, beyond all shadow of doubt) that the defendant committed the crime?" The answer to the latter question may be negative even if the answer to the former is positive. Unfortunately, many of the people who are upset over the verdict seem to have missed this disctinction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You

I hope the death threats to all involved, including the judge, are just hollow threats

Unfortunately, the authorities have to assume that each threat is for real. The greater danger, however, is that some loose cannon may attempt to kill the judge, a juror, the defendant, or one or another of the attorneys even without first transmitting a death threat.

Originally Posted by You, though attributed to another anonymous individual

I think the system held up in one regard. You're guaranteed a jury of our peers and she's a moron, and they found 12 other morons to form a moron baker's dozen down there. I think it should be like the NFL, where you get that red flag, and during the case if you hear something that you don't like you can stop it right there and go, "I'm voting guilty right now." And I would have stopped it when they said her 2-year-old was lost and she waited 30 days to call the cops. I would have just thrown my flag and said, "Guilty. I don't even need to know what the rest of it is, give her some time." Because anybody who waits 30 minutes, much less 30 days, she's guilty of something. I don't quite know what it is, but something bad; something rotten in Denmark.

Has it occurred to any of those who are eager to tar and feather the jurors that, according to the principles of our legal system, the jury actually might have returned the right verdicts on ALL of the charges?

>> 1. Factually, there apparently was no evidence whatsoever that linked the defendant to the death of the victim. There were no fingerprints on the duct tape, either literally or figuratively, that might have indicated that an act by the defendant caused the death of the child. Thus, the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof for murder or any lesser included charge, including manslaughter, and also failed to meet the burden of proof on the separate "aggravated manslaughter" charge.

>> 2. From a standpoint of child neglect or abuse, you cannot neglect or abuse a child who is already dead. Thus, failure to report the child missing does not constitute this crime if the child was already dead. In order to sustain such a charge, the prosecution would need to prove that the victim was still alive at the time of the alleged failure.

The prosecution clearly did prove all four counts of false statements to police, on which the jury correctly returned convictions.

So overall, it appears that the jury did return the correct verdicts on all charges.

There was conclusive forensic evidence that the child had duct tape in the area of her mouth. Secondly, the mother didn't even report her missing for I think over a month and kept lying about where she was. Why?

First, as best I can tell, there was a piece of duct tape stuck to a few strands of her hair such that it would fall over her nose and mouth if turned to fall on her face. I don't recall any evidence that the duct tape had acutally been bonded to her face, though admittedly I might have simply missed such a detail.

Second, the mother's apparent failure to report the child missing really does not prove anything. Yes, it's suspicious, and the detectives clearly should pursue that line of inquiry in their investigation, but they apparently did not turn up any evidence that would constitute proof of wrongdoing.

Quote:

You]Now if the death was an accident, I would like to know the answers to those questions.

So would a lot of other people.

Nonetheless, our legal system requires the prosecution to prove the case. It does not require the defendant to explain behavior that may seem suspicious or otherwise strange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You

If the baby had accidentally drowned, why all of the hullabaloo? Her very own tesitmony was enough to convict her in any court I've ever been in. She repeatedly lied not only to police but the prosecution and even her own lawyer threw his original defense right out the window which is practically unheard of.

This might seem like splitting hairs, but she technically did not testify to anything because her statements to police do not constitute testimony. Note, also, that the convictions are for "false statements" to investigators rather than for "perjury" because she was not under oath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You

I personally think the entire answer to the whole thing was the look on the parents faces as they got up and left right after the verdict was read and if anyone knows, they certainly do. The mother lied to save her child's life but I think it's obvious, they both knew she was responsible for their granddaughter's death.

The defendant may well have killed her daughter, but the real problem here is incompetence on the part of the prosecutors. The prosecutors should not have brought indictments without clear evidence linking the defendant to the offense. By bringing the case to trial without the necessary evidence, they have precluded any future prosecution on the same charges even if new evidence comes to light via the "double jeopardy" clause in our federal constitution.

Having said that, I think it's good to have cameras in our courtrooms so we, the people of the United States of America, can witness the bungling of cases such as this by prosecutors acting in our name. If enough of our fellow citizens get sufficiently upset, we might even get competent investigators and prosecutors!

I am concerned for the jurors. They discharged their duty as best they saw fit, yet now those who disagree want to know their names. So it is that people did their civic duty, which they were compelled to do by law, yet they'll be threatened, sullied, and have their lives ruined by some who seek retribution by blaming the jury. And lets not forget the media encampments on their lawns.

No wonder nobody wants to serve on a jury.

I was a juror in NYC on what I believe was the first terrorist trial . We found the defendent guilty on 8 counts . A few days later I was walking up the steps from a subway station and walking downstairs was the defendant .

I am concerned for the jurors. They discharged their duty as best they saw fit, yet now those who disagree want to know their names. So it is that people did their civic duty, which they were compelled to do by law, yet they'll be threatened, sullied, and have their lives ruined by some who seek retribution by blaming the jury. And lets not forget the media encampments on their lawns.

No wonder nobody wants to serve on a jury.

I was a juror in NYC on what I believe was the first terrorist trial . We found the defendant guilty on 8 counts . A few days later I was walking up the steps from a subway station and walking downstairs was the defendant .

I watched the trial almost from day one. I enjoy things like this, and love learning new things. Once we arrived in Orlando, it was all over the place.

My girlfriend and I went downtown just to see the courthouse, and the news trucks.

I think that she not only did it, but proved that if you wait to report, and are lucky enough to have a storm come through, you can get away with murder. It also helps that she was white, young, and proved that you can use the abuse card, and it works.

I think it also proves that juries are human, and they do the best that they can.

I also think that she will get in trouble again, and will one day be back in jail.

I too have to agree with Norm on this. I watched the trial relentlessly. In my heart she was and still is guilty. The evidence just does not tie her to the death. The jury in following the law did what they had to do.

Laura

__________________
“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.“
---Mark Twain